Will the Real Complementarianism Please Stand Up

In a recent opinion piece published in Christianity Today, Dr. John Koessler, himself a complementarian, takes complementarians to task over several matters. In his article, entitled "Wounds of a Friend: Complementarian," Dr. Koessler opens with a provocative paragraph,

"I am a complementarian. I believe the Bible teaches that God created men and women to serve different roles in the church and in the home. But I am deeply concerned that some complementarians are missing the mark. In their efforts to restore God's ideal, I fear they may actually distort it."

His diagnosis includes the following symptoms: focusing on putting women in their place instead of on what the Bible says about gender relationships; misunderstanding the image of God in men and women; stifling the feminine perspective and being overly shaped by culture. He also speaks of some complementarian's confusion as to a woman's highest calling and incivility in carrying out the gender debate.

We are very eager to find the voice of God in every critique that comes our way. Where Dr. Koessler's concerns prove true they must be repented of and ceased. We agree that distorting Scripture to match one's presuppositions sadly occurs, not just in the gender debate, but in all matters of life and faith. Additionally, we whole-heartedly concur that incivility is a constant danger on both sides. And where women are permitted no voice, no matter the cause, they should be silenced no more.

There is merit to Dr. Koessler's concerns. We are glad for his impulse to improve complementarianism. Yet, his critique rings hollow in two significant ways. 1) He writes about a complementarianism we do not recognize. 2) He advocates a foreign view of the image of God.

Clear Complementarity

Complementarianism that "stifles the feminine perspective" sounds more like unbiblical traditionalism than anything we endorse. Complementarianism, as we understand it, rises right of out the text of Scripture. All the texts pertaining to God's design in gender must be incorporated into one's view - each given their intended weight. Men and women can do this interpretive work equally. Thus Donna Thoennes, Margaret Kostenberger, Mary Kassian, Susan Hunt, and a host of other women, past and present, express their exegetical views in such a manner that manifests femininity un-stifled.

One need only cast a brief blush at the complementarian literature to find that we do not assume a woman's highest calling to be a wife and mother.  We believe it is an incredibly high calling, normative, precious and unassailable - but not the terms to use as the ‘highest calling.'  That would be something closer to this: a woman's highest calling is to glorify God in her womanhood by faithfully relying on all that He is for her in Jesus Christ and devoting herself to him in wise, strong, courageous, joyful, life-nurturing femininity. For another helpful statement of the highest callings for men and women see the initial chapters in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

For Koessler to ask, "...why didn't Jesus commend Martha instead of Mary (Luke 10:42)? After all, her work in the kitchen reflected a woman's traditional role" so as to imply that he was interacting with complementarians reveals a significant confusion of our views with a kind of one-dimensional traditionalism that sees women as merely kitchen-bound.

The Image of God

With regard to the image of God, Koessler writes,

"It is often said that men and women bear the image of God equally.  But it might be more accurate to say that men and women bear God's image together. Men and women collectively reflect the divine image; one with out the other is incomplete."

We believe it is inaccurate to describe the image of God in this ‘partitive' fashion. The Bible does not say that God created humanity in his image. Rather it says he created males and females in his image: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26-27). In other words, each person bears the image of God fully. The image of God lacks nothing in a woman; just as it lacks nothing in a man.

As Wayne Grudem points out (on page 453 of Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth) if men and women each bore the image of God incompletely, then Jesus Christ as a man, would only bear a part of the image of God. But the Scriptures declare he bears the image of God, not in part, but fully (John 14:9, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, Colossians 1:19).

It is a difficult thing to take up the task of critiquing a complex movement like complementarianism. Better surely, to take up individual ideas, understand them to their holder's satisfaction, and only then critique the idea against Scripture. Though Koessler has his finger on some important diagnoses, there yet seems room for closer examination of the patient.